Talk:Real Presence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Lutherans and Consubstantiation

Lutheran theologians have rejected this term as implying that the elements of the sacrament are mixed together. Since they believe that the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine remain separate and distinct in the sacrament, they have rejected the term in favor of the term "Real Presence." --CTSWyneken 12:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you in part; I have understood that some Lutheran theologians have said that their Eucharistic theology is better described as "ubiquitarianism", with "consubstantiation" being a Roman "sub-category" of "transubstantiation". Having said that, however, most of Christendom describes Lutheran Eucharistic theology, peraps incorrectly, using the term consubstantiation. I would suggest a few things:
  1. Further elucidation on the page for Consubstantiation, which already mentions your concerns;
  2. Maintaining the consubstantiation reference regarding Lutheran theology on this page, while pointing out that Lutherans don't utilize the term, but it is utilized by others when they speak about Lutheran Eucharistic theology; and,
  3. Further elucidation on the page for Eucharist, which, again, already mentions your concerns.
Just some thoughts! KHM03 12:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Differences of views need mention

Edit prior to User:CTSWyneken, tried to provide summary. This was removed. I believe it is useful to lead in discussion. May be possible to better present intro, and tie it into article. Removal of reference to consubstantiation (even if not a term used by Lutherans) and absence would not help readers Paul foord 03:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration movement

Why is Real Presence in the category for Restoration movement, and why does it mention the Disciples of Christ? I don't believe these groups affirm Real Presence; aren't they memorialists? I could be wrong. KHM03 12:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earlier edit indicated that they did not ascribe to real presence, removed at same time as consubstantiation. Paul foord 12:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If they do not ascribe to this belief, why are they listed here? KHM03 12:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Their Eucharistic theology is stated as being bible based. However, there is a sense of reaction amongst all memorialists, to perceived/actual abuses they observed amongst those having real presence beliefs. Possibly this needs to be stated but the range of perspectives from 0% - 100% are relevant to the topic. Paul foord 12:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Relevant to the topic, perhaps, but should "Real Presence" be listed under the category "Restoration movement", which by and large rejects "real presence"? "Memorialism", sure..."Lord's Supper", yes. But "Real Presence"? I don't think so.

Having said that, there certainly could be a subsection to "Real Presence" which mentions the fact that some Christian traditions reject the idea, and a bit as to why...though detailed discussions as to their own Eucharistic theologies are best presented under Eucharist, Lord's Supper, Holy Communion, Memorialism, or something like that. KHM03 13:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Three things got changed in my edit.

1. "ascribe to this doctrine", of course, should have read, "subscribe to this doctrine".

2. I sectioned off the Reformed view, which does affirm the Real Presence, but in a very different manner from the ALCOMeths (Anglican, Lutheran Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist; and yes, I chose that acronym deliberately  : D ). It deserves its own section, because lumping it with the Baptistic view conflates the two, and they are quite different. I couldn't get the opening of the section to work properly, though, so if anyone gets a brainwave on how to make it happen, please do. The major problem is that, AFAIK, all holders of this view are Reformed, but not all the Reformed hold this view.

3. I noted that the "non-presence" view is called Zwinglian, after Zwingli. Oddly, the Wiki article on Zwingli doesn't note his (at the time, unique) views on the Sacraments. I also noted that this view is commonly associated with Baptists and some Reformed churches.

Wooster 14:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See The sacraments in Christian Theology: An Introduction, Alister E. McGrath, 3rd edition and On Zwingli Paul foord 15:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consecration

"The majority of churches require that ordained clergy consecrate the elements. Some groups, such as the Disciples of Christ-Christian Churches allow lay people to consecrate the elements." I'm not sure, but I think the idea of "consecrating" the elements might be foreign to Disciples/Church of Christ. - Rlvaughn 4 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)

How's that? Re-titled, because it's actually dealing with the concept of consecration and the action of distribution (potential category confusion?) and padded with a bit more detail. Deliberately left the first paragraph vague because I suspect Lutherans and Anglicans might fit in there, at least some of them. Wooster 5 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

Rlvaughn is right, "consecration" isn't an idea the DOC officially promotes. From The Disciples Official Site:

Traditionally the Disciples of Christ have been hesitant to speak of the Lord's Supper as a sacrament. They believed that some who regarded the Lord's Supper as a sacrament attributed supernatural powers to the elements of bread and wine. It may be true that Jesus said that "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life (John 6:54)," but Jesus often spoke in lively metaphor. The meaning for us is expanded when we understand that Jesus spoke in these symbolic terms. Although impatient with theological conjectures explaining how communion elements become Christ's body, there has been little doubt among Disciples as to the reality of the living Christ's presence among those who share in the Lord's Supper. The Lord makes himself known to persons in a variety of circumstances. Characteristically he is known in the sharing together of the Lord's Supper. If a sacrament is, as some say, "an outward and visible sign of the Lord's invisible grace," Disciples have no particular problem with speaking of the Lord's Supper as a sacrament.

DOC offers a wide latitude for individuals to decide what they believe for themselves: "Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Some DOC'ers believe in transubstantion, consubstantiation, "nosubstantiation," and a variety of positions in between, and that's exactly how the DOC wants it to be. Call it a "pillar of the faith."

Also, I changed the link in the article to point to the DOC article rather than restoration movement, and to reflect the standard nomenclature Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). -- Essjay · Talk July 5, 2005 18:50 (UTC)

I just fact-checked (and boy, did it take time) and Lutherans happily use the word consecration *and* call their ministers pastors. Well, the Germans. Scandies call them priests. I never knew that, so just in case anyone else was wondering (like I did) why the word "pastor" was snuck into that paragraph, that's why. Wooster 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

[edit] Presidency

Presidency is a concept used by DOC, relevant to differentiate betw consecrating & distr generally Paul foord 7 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency and overlap: a proposal

I'm thinking that, a template needs to be made which contains very brief descriptions of the various views: probably, one for each view. This could be inserted into each article where these descriptions are called for (they are in several articles). Using templates for the repeated material would force consistency of terminology and explanation. If we have one template for each view, then we could also expand within a section, if called for in that particular article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 08:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the banner-style template for Eucharist; but I think that for this particular issue - especially because it is so useful in different contexts to explain distinctions in traditions - this other approach might be more productive. This article would be the logical base for the project. Is there support for trying it, to see what you think? Mkmcconn (Talk) 08:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean something to the effect of a template that would be inserted into the main article text and would appear to the reader as article text? If so, while a good idea, it's prohibited by Wikipedia policy: Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article. -- Essjay · Talk 08:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for saying it's a good idea. That makes me feel better - but I should look at those policie more often. Anyway, the content of these several articles needs to be brought into more full, if not exact, agreement, I think. Mkmcconn (Talk) 08:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it's an inherrent trait of the wiki system: With articles everyone can edit, nothing can ever be standardized. We can try, though! -- Essjay · Talk 09:07, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Headings and tightening

  • Each view matches a tradition, so both being in the heading has a logic to it, whether RC-transubstantiation or transubstantiation-RC is something I'm not sure about
  • Calvinistic and Zwinglian traditions are both Reformed, I think there is no simple was to get round this.

Regarding a template, maybe a suggested/consistant structure would be useful. Maybe

  • Summary
    • What
    • Current proponents/Range of views
    • List options
    • Impact
  • Background/History
    • precursors
    • who what where when
    • Biblical rationale
    • Support from tradition
      • Patristic background
    • Other factors
  • Related issues
  • See also

I think these articles are sometimes short on Biblical and Patristic citations.

Use of main template could be useful pointer. Paul foord 14:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


I think we should utilize the Eucharist template and make changes as we deem necessary. Too many tenmplates on one subject defeats the purpose of the templates in the first place. KHM03 20:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheran view

This was posted by an anonymous editor, under the the Lutheran view. The opinion accords with what has been written elsewhere on WP, and so I incorporated a change based on the strongest objection: Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The above quotation, "sometimes even [reserved] as in Catholic practice," has no basis in fact in accordance with the Lutheran Confessions and Symbolics as appear in the Book of Concord of 1580. Confessional ("we believe, teach, and confess") Lutherans that subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions without reservation do not "revear" the elements "as in [Roman] Catholic" (See "Corpus Christi")
If one goes to the online "Christian Cyclopedia" (the online version of what was once known as the "Lutheran Cyclopedia"), you will find the following quotation under Consubstantiation:
"View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner. See also Grace, Means of, IV 3." Under the link "Grace, Means of, IV 3," you may search for the word consubstantition and find more. Should you require further definition, the www.lcms.org web site FAQ section will respond to your questions.

[edit] Revision of Lutheran position

The Lutheran position on the Lord's Supper is more accurately labeled as Sacramental Union; therefore I propose the following revision of this section to clarify the Lutheran position here:

"Level 2 headline: Lutherans - Sacramental Union" Lutherans believe and teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under" the consecrated bread and wine. This is defined as "Sacramental Union": When the bread and wine for Holy Communion is used (consecrated, distributed, and received) the body of Christ is united to the consecrated bread and the blood of Christ to the consecrated wine in a substantial, real, though unseen manner. This "Sacramental Union" is unique in theology and philosophy according to Martin Luther and is not analogous to any other "union." This is brought about by Christ's first speaking "the Words of Institution" not by the recitation of these words by the presiding minister of the Lord's Supper. Augsburg Confession, Article 10 states: "Concerning the Lord’s Supper it is taught that the true body and blood of Christ are truly present under the form of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper and are distributed and received there. Rejected, therefore, is also the contrary teaching," so that communicants eat and drink both, the elements (the consecrated bread and wine) and the body and blood of Christ Himself. For the vast majority of Lutherans, only bread and wine remain after the distribution of the Lord's Supper: the elements are treated with respect, but not "revered" or reserved as in Roman Catholic practice. Lutherans use the terms "Sacramental Union" and "in, with, and under the bread and wine" to distinguish their understanding of the Lord's Supper from that of the Reformed tradition. Lutherans reject the terms "Consubstantiation" and "Impanation" as names for their doctrine because these imply that Christ's body and blood are present in the way food is physically present in normal eating and drinking, a "gross, carnal, and Capernaitic" way.
Please allow some of this to be incorporated into this article, because this is of vital concern to Lutherans.drboisclair 22:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Seeing no objection, go for it. The only caution I'd have is to be sure that the resulting text is as clear as possible to contemporary ears. Wiki articles often are translated to other languages, with resulting fuzziness. The clearer in English, the clearer in these languages. For example, I like what I see so far in the latest edits. Can we find another word for "very" in "very body..." Many of today's folk find the term odd. Perhaps, "true"? --CTSWyneken 11:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I Made that needed change, and I feel that the paragraph that I entered above is too long for the article, which needs to be short and concise as you have pointed out. drboisclair 14:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicans

I've rewritten the Anglican/Episcopalian section at Eucharistic_theologies_contrasted since it was previously quite Anglo-Catholic in POV. While this page on the Real Presence is nowhere near as Anglo-Catholic in POV I think some improvements could be made. (I already have some material to use as I originally wrote much more than ended up on that page).

First of all, lumping Calvinist Anglicans (who believe in the Spiritual Presence) together with those who believe in the bodily presence of Christ and calling them both a belief in the "Real Presence" is a bit misleading. If you asked most Calvinsit Anglicans what they believed they would strongly DENY belief in the "Real Presence" but also uphold Christ's Spiritual Presence -- not in the elements but with his people when they "feed on him in [their] heart[s] by faith with thanksgiving". I don't think the "Spiritual Presence" view can fairly be categorised as "Real Presence". But nor is it a complete denial of Christ's presence. The position is fairly nuanced and needs to be explained a bit better.

Secondly, stating that Anglicans generally believe in the Real Presence is highly contentious. I'm not sure how small your small minority of dissentiants is (or whether indeed it is a minority at all). It all depends on where you're coming from. If you inhabit largely High Church circles (eg ECUSA) then it will seem like an almost non-existent minority of intransigent Puritans who would be better served by leaving Anglicanism and joining the Presbyterians etc :-) If you inhabit largely Low Church Circles (eg Diocese of Sydney -- numerically by far and away the largest Diocese in Australia where estimates are that Sydney has more Sunday church attenders than all other Australian dioceses combined; or most of the Church of Ireland or large chunks of the C of E etc etc) the situation is reversed and those who believe in the Real Presence are in the minority and would be better served by going and joining Rome :-) So unless you have some statistics to back you up I think that's a little POV to say that Anglicans generally believe in the Real Presence. It all depends where you're coming from, not to mention what you mean by "Real Presence".

Thirdly, stating that Anglicans officially believe in the Real Presence begs the question. These Low-Church deniers of the Real Presence would argue very strongly that Anglicanism officially rejects belief in the Real Presence and teaches that belief in the Real Presence is idolatrous. So this requires us to look very hard at (i) what we mean by the "Real Presence" and (ii) the official Anglican doctrinal standards. The position of ECUSA might make things hard. In most places (despite liturgical revision) the official doctrinal standards remain the BCP 1662 and the 39 Articles of 1562. ECUSA has adopted modified forms which don't just serve as alternate liturgy but which also serve as doctrinal standards. Hopefully these don't change anything of substance -- but who knows. ECUSA has now officially called the Holy Communion/ Lord's Supper (the two 1662 terms) the "Holy Eucharist" and (as far as I know) declared it as the central aspect of Episcopalian worship! This would horrify many Low-Church Anglicans who would see this as popish superstition infiltrating a Reformed Church.

If I (Anglican Church of Australia but currently in England and attending a C of E) wanted to explain what Anglicans officially believe I would have to exegete the BCP 1662 and the 39 Articles of 1562. And it is far from clear cut that Anglicans officially believe in the Real Presence. This is very controversial as Low Church and High Church Anglicans interpret them very differently.

I would be happy to outline the relevant bits of the BCP 1662 and the 39 Articles 1562 and give the various lines of argument both for and against any official belief in the Real Presence. But would this satisfy an ECUSA Anglican? I think it would become too unwieldy to have to deal with more than one set of doctrinal standards.

Finally, reference to the Windsor Statement/ ARCIC is quite POV. No mention is made of the fact that (a) this does not represent any official doctrinal position of Anglicanism; only the BCP and the 39 Articles do; (b) ARCIC is inhabited by Anglo-Catholics (who therefore don't speak for Anglicanism as a whole); most Low-Church Anglicans disagree strongly with pretty much everything ARCIC has ever said.

What do people think? Apodeictic 11:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

One non-Anglican thinks: Go ahead. Lima 12:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done it; but it is about two-and-a-half-times as long as the current section. This doesn't surprse me since I'm outlining at least two different views of Anglicanism (pro-Real Presence and Anti-Real Presence not to mention the variations on a theme). Part of me thinks this Intra-denominational differences of opinion should have its own space on Wiki, so as not to overload other pages (such as this one) which aim to compare and contrast Inter-denominational differences of opinion. But the divisions within Anglicanism are arguably very unique and unlike divisions within other denominations. You can't just say "Anglicanism adheres to belief in the Real Presence" or "Anglicanism rejects belief in the Real Presence". Just about everything is disputed within Anglicanism and you will be able to find respectable voices (not just the "lunatic fringe" as some Wiki pages would seem to suggest about some Anglican viewpoints) for every position. You have people akin to the most radically conservative non-Conformist (Independent) Evangelicals at one end of the spectrum, ultra-ritualist, traditionalist and conservative Catholics at the other end of the spectrum and everyone else (including the most liberal theological liberals) in between -- all in a single denomination. If you are to do justice in comparing Anglicans with other denominations you need to know something (in broad outline at least) about the major internal divisions within Anglicanism. Arguably belief in or rejection of the Real Presence is one of those. What to do??? Can I create an Anglican Real Presence Page on Wikipedia? Or will that irk the organisational types who think that every denominational view on the Real Presence can and should be covered on a single page such as this one? Can we have a section on this page (not really any bigger than the current Anglican section) that links to another page with each viewpoint's arguments? Are people looking at Wikipedia interested in a presentation of the various arguments about the proper interpretation of Anglican doctrinal standards (so that they can evaluate the strength of these arguments for themselves) or are they happy just to know that differences of opinion exist and remain forever blissfully ignorant of the merits of the arguments behind these differences of opinion? Apodeictic 13:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be very interested in reading a clear exposition of Anglican teaching (not just the views of some individual Anglicans); and I regret that nobody else has given any encouragement to Apodeictic's plan. Indeed, on another page, someone has made a negative comment. It is reported that, during the First World War, when an English recruit, on being asked his religion, said: "I have no religious convictions whatsoever," the sergeant overseeing the paper work responded: "That means Church of England, m'lad." I suppose this really meant that recruits who failed to specify another religion were classified as belonging to the established Church. But it has been cited as an indication of the broadness (or vagueness?) of Anglican belief. Parts of Apodeictic's text above might perhaps also be cited as a similar indication. Could some Anglican please write and include in one or other of the two Wikipedia articles Anglicanism and Anglican Communion (each of which curiously ignores the existence of the other - shouldn't they be merged?) a section on present-day Anglican belief, and on whether Anglican formularies count for anything at all? I realize this may sound cynical, but I sincerely do not mean it that way. I am just curious. Lima 14:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I removed 2 paragraphs which don't pertain directly to the issue of "real presence", in an effort to keep the section a bit more concise and focused. KHM03 (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Lima: there is an official Anglican position on this -- and most other doctrinal disputes. In answer to the question "What is the official position of the [insert particular Anglican church here; eg Church of Ireland] on the doctrine of the Real Presence?" The answer is a very clear "That (provided it is not contradicted by Scripture) which is found in the 39 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer of [insert particular Anglican Church here]." There's your answer. Of course that doesn't satisfy because anyone can see the huge amount of diversity in Anglican belief and praxis. Why is there so much diversity within Anglicaism when there is an official doctrinal standard? Your WWI remark was obviously meant in jest but there is more than a grain of truth in it. Anglican diversity, therefore, raises two important questions. (1) Are the Anglican doctrinal standards genuinely ambiguous leading to legitimate difference of opinion? (2) Or are the standards clear but Anglicans nonetheless disregard them in practice, holding views contrary to them? In other words: does this diversity of opinion arise (1) because of or (2) in spite of the doctrinal standards?
That is why I wanted to outline (non-POV of course) the major positions within Anglicanism with references to the BCP and 39 Articles so that the reader might be able to judge for him/herself whether these vast differences within Anglicanism arise from (1) or (2). My personal view is that there are some minor differences attributable to (1) but most of the big ones are attributable to (2). In other words, it is my opinion (POV of course!) that many views held within Anglicanism (even by priests, bishops and theologians) are quite contrary to official Anglian belief. Actually it's not so POV because the courts (civil courts -- not church courts dominated by church party politics) have been called on to interpret Anglican doctrine. The courts didn't throw their hands up in the air and say that the formularies are so ambiguous that Anglicans can believe whatever they want. They have taken a line just as they would interpret a statute passed by a parliament. There is an ascertainable meaning there.
It might even be that the beliefs of the majority of Anglicans in any one area at any given time are contrary to official Anglican beliefs (those taught in the 39 Articles and the BCP). (But that's getting into the realm of POV/ controversy!) I personally think that if you read the Anglican doctrinal standards Anglicanism does have a firm position on the Real Presence and that the difference of opinion over the Real Presence arises out of people ignoring or (deliberately?) misconstruing the doctrinal standards (the second issue) rather than genuine ambiguity (the first issue). But that's my personal view. Other Anglicans would disagree which means you will have to read the relevant bits of the BCP and the 39 Articles for yourself. There is no magisterium in Anglicanism that gives official pronouncements on Anglican belief and practice. The Archbishop of Canterbury can't speak for Anglicanism. ARCIC (an Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue group) can't (hence my objection here and elsewhere to blanket statements about ARCIC pronouncements as if they represented any official Anglican position). The Church Society (an Anglican Evangelical lobby group) can't. The Church Union (an Anglo-Catholic lobby group) can't. Only the Bible, the BCP and the 39 Articles can.
Your question on whether Anglican formularies count for anything at all gets to the very heart of the matter. In theory they count immensely since (in second place to the Scriptures which are common to all Christian churches of course) they are the sole authoritative source of Anglican doctrine. But in practice among many Anglicans (but not all -- some do still take them seriously) they are not regarded in the slightest. Some Anglicans take pride in the formularies; some are embarrassed by them; while most would have no idea what they say. Well those sweeping remarks need some clarification. I can't speak for all Anglican churches (particularly ECUSA which seems to do things a bit differently from the rest of the world), but in most Anglican churches throughout the world in order to be ordained as a priest (but maybe as a deacon too; I'm not sure on the position with deacons) you need to assent to the 39 Articles. In practice many priests/ordinands don't think very highly of them at all and see assenting to them as a mere formality to ordination. Some ordinands/ priests, however, do take assenting to them very seriously. As far as I know, there is nothing requring lay Anglicans to believe the theology of the Anglican formularies.
So like you Lima: I think there should be something on Wiki explaining Anglican attitudes to the Anglican formularies. In theory they are binding on clergy but in practice additudes of the Anglican clergy to them vary immensely. Many Anglican clergy disregard them completely; others take them very seriously. Your WWI quip is basically true -- even for the clergy! Apodeictic 14:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed grateful to Apodeictic for what to me seems to be a good clear exposition of an unclear subject. The WWI "quip" was in fact what someone who had been a British army chaplain in that war said he had himself witnessed. Since he is dead for some 45 years, I cannot ask him to confirm it. Lima 18:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is an official Anglican position, it would have to be from Cranmer. Cranmer says: Christ is really present in the Eucharist. In a real, but "heavenly and spiritual manner" the faithful receive the "self-same" Body and Blood of Christ. See [1]. In the Thirty-Nine Articles, see no. 29 "of the wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord' Supper: "THE Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing." Certainly there is in the Communion a range of opinions from transubstantiation to memorialism, but this is Cranmer's formulation. So "officially" a form of Real Presence is taught in Anglicanism, but in practice beliefs vary. Also, the Sydney Diocese is only nominally Anglican (and really is considered "lunatic fringe" by the global communion). Classical Anglicanism simultaneously rejects Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. I certainly agree that an article on Anglican Eucharistic theology is in order. I may get it started myself. Carolynparrishfan 14:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically, although low churchmen might argue that Anglicanism officially rejects RP, this argument is wrong. The 39 Articles say "the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.". Few Christian groups recognize no form of Real Presence (Baptists and Mennonites don't). Catholics have a very physical understanding of it, and Presbyterians (for example) on the other hand understand it as a "spiritual presence", but neither believes its just a symbol. I'm not denying that some Anglicans believe in memorialism, but they cannot claim to speak "officially" any more than the equally small number of Anglicans who believe in transubstantiation (I was once one of these, but now think more highly of transignification). Carolynparrishfan 16:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/a/Talk%7EReal_Presence_3cbd.html"